4 ms·

200k+ tokens is a pretty big context window if you are feeding it the right context. Editors like Cursor are really good at indexing and curating context for yo

200k+ tokens is a pretty big context window if you are feeding it the right context. Editors like Cursor are really good at indexing and curating context for you; perhaps it'd be worth trying something that does that better than Claude CLI does?

troupo 10mo ago
> a pretty big context window if you are feeding it the right context. Yup. There's some magical "right context" that will fix all the problems. What is that right context? No idea, I guess I need to read a yet-another 20 000-word post describing magical incantations that you should or shouldn't do in the context. The "Opus 4.5 is something else/nex tier/just works" claims in my mind means that I wouldn't need to babysit its every decision, or that it would actually read relevant lines from relevant files etc. Nope. Exact same behaviors as whatever the previous model was. Oh, and that "200k tokens context window"? It's a lie. The quality quickly degrades as soon as Claude reaches somewhere around 50% of the context window. At 80+% it's nearly indistinguishable from a model from two years ago. (BTW, same for Codex/GPT with it's "1 million token window")
- CuriouslyC 10mo ago
  I realize your experience has been frustrating. I hope you see that every generation of model and harness is converting more hold-outs. We're still a few years from hard diminishing returns assuming capital keeps flowing (and that's without any major new architectures which are likely) so you should be able to see how this is going to play out. It's in your interest to deal with your frustration and figure out how you can leverage the new tools to stay relevant (to the degree that you want to). Regarding the context window, Claude needs thinking turned up for long context accuracy, it's quite forgetful without thinking.
  - th0ma5 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - CuriouslyC 10mo ago
      Personally I'm sympathetic to people who don't want to have to use AI, but I dislike it when they attack my use of AI as a skill issue. I'm quite certain the workplace is going to punish people who don't leverage AI though, and I'm trying to be helpful.
      - troupo 10mo ago
        > but I dislike it when they attack my use of AI as a skill issue. No one attacked your use of AI. I explained my own experience with the "Claude Opus 4.5 is next tier". You barged in, ignored anything I said, and attacked my skills. > the workplace is going to punish people who don't leverage AI though, and I'm trying to be helpful. So what exactly is helpful in your comments?
        CuriouslyC 10mo ago
        The only thing I disagreed with in your post is your objectively incorrect statement regarding Claude's context behavior. Other than that I'm just trying to encourage you to make preparations for something that I don't think you're taking seriously enough yet. No need to get all worked up, it'll only reflect on you.
    - pigeons 10mo ago
      It certainly sounds unkind, if not cultish.
    - mikestorrent 10mo ago
      And, conversely, when we read a comment like yours, it sounds like someone who's afraid of computers, would maybe have decried the bicycle and automobile, and really wishes they could just go live in a cabin in the woods. (And it's fine to do so, just don't mail bombs to us, ok?)
  - troupo 10mo ago
    Note how nothing in your comment addresses anything I said. Except the last sentence that basically confirms what I said. This perfectly illustrates the discourse around AI. As for the snide and patronizing "it's in your interest to stay relevant": 1. I use these tools daily. That's why I don't subscribe to willful wide-eyed gullibility. I know exactly what these tools can and cannot do. The vast majority of "AI skeptics" are the same. 2. In a few years when the world is awash in barely working incomprehensible AI slop my skills will be in great demand. Not because I'm an amazing developer (I'm not), but because I have experience separating wheat from the chaff
    - CuriouslyC 10mo ago
      The snide and patronizing is your projection. It kinda makes me sad when the discourse is so poisoned that I can't even encourage someone to protect their own future from something that's obviously coming (technical merits aside, purely based on social dynamics). It seems the subject of AI is emotionally charged for you, so I expect friendly/rational discourse is going to be a challenge. I'd say something nice but since you're primed to see me being patronizing... Fuck you? That what you were expecting?
      - troupo 10mo ago
        > The snide and patronizing is your projection. It's not me who decided to barge in, assume their opponent doesn't use something or doesn't want to use something, and offer unsolicited advice. > It kinda makes me sad when the discourse is so poisoned that I can't even encourage someone to protect their own future from something that's obviously coming See. Again. You're so in love with your "wisdom" that you can't even see what you sound like: snide, patronising, condenscending. And completely missing the whole point of what was written. You are literally the person who poisons the discourse. Me: "here are the issues I still experience with what people claim are 'next tier frontier model'" You: "it's in your interests to figure out how to leverage new tools to stay relevant in the future" Me: ... what the hell are you talking about? I'm using these tools daily. Do you have anything constructive to add to the discourse? > so I expect friendly/rational discourse is going to be a challenge. It's only challenge to you because you keep being in love with your voice and your voice only. Do you have anything to contribute to the actual rational discourse, are you going to attack my character? > 'd say something nice but since you're primed to see me being patronizing... Fuck you? T Ah. The famous friendly/rational discourse of "they attack my use of AI" (no one attacked you), "why don't you invest in learning tools to stay relevant in the future" (I literally use these tools daily, do you have anything useful to say?) and "fuck you" (well, same to you). > That what you were expecting? What I was expecting is responses to what I wrote, not you riding in on a high horse.
- theshrike79 10mo ago
  It's like working with humans: 1) define problem 2) split problem into small independently verifiable tasks 3) implement tasks one by one, verify with tools With humans 1) is the spec, 2) is the Jira or whatever tasks With an LLM usually 1) is just a markdown file, 2) is a markdown checklist, Github issues (which Claude can use with the `gh` cli) and every loop of 3 gets a fresh context, maybe the spec from step 1 and the relevant task information from 2 I haven't ran into context issues in a LONG time, and if I have it's usually been either intentional (it's a problem where compacting wont' hurt) or an error on my part.
  - troupo 10mo ago
    > every loop of 3 gets a fresh context, maybe the spec from step 1 and the relevant task information from 2 > I haven't ran into context issues in a LONG time Because you've become the reverse centaur :) "a person who is serving as a squishy meat appendage for an uncaring machine." [1] You are very aware of the exact issues I'm talking about, and have trained yourself to do all the mechanical dance moves to avoid them. I do the same dances, that's why I'm pointing out that they are still necessary despite the claims of how model X/Y/Z are "next tier". [1] https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-12-05-pop-that-bubble-u-washington-8b6b75abc28e https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-12-05...
    - theshrike79 10mo ago
      Yes and no. I've worked quite a bit with juniors, offshore consultants and just in companies where processes are a bit shit. The exact same method that worked for those happened to also work for LLMs, I didn't have to learn anything new or change much in my workflow. "Fix bug in FoobarComponent" is enough of a bug ticket for the 100x developer in your team with experience with that specific product, but bad for AI, juniors and offshored teams. Thus, giving enough context in each ticket to tell whoever is working on it where to look and a few ideas what might be the root cause and how to fix it is kinda second nature to me. Also my own brain is mostly neurospicy mush, so _I_ need to write the context to the tickets even if I'm the one on it a few weeks from now. Because now-me remembers things, two-weeks-from-now me most likely doesn't.
- mikestorrent 10mo ago
  > There's some magical "right context" that will fix all the problems. All I can tell you is that in my own lived experience, I've had some fantastic results from AI, and it comes from telling it "look at this thing here, ok, i want you to chain it to that, please consider this factor, don't forget that... blah blah blah" like how I would have spelled things out to a junior developer, and then it really does stand a really solid chance of turning out what I've asked for. It helps a lot that I know what to ask for; there's no replacing that with AI yet. So, your own situation must fall into one of these coarse buckets: - You're doing something way too hard for AI to have a chance at yet, like real science / engineering at the frontier, not just boring software or infra development - Your prompts aren't specific enough, you're not feeding it context, and you're expecting it to one-shot things perfectly instead of having to spend an afternoon prompting and correcting stuff - You're not actually using and getting better at the tools, so you're just shouting criticisms from the sidelines, perhaps as sour grape because you're not allowed by policy / company can't afford to have you get into it. IDK. I hope it's the first one and you're just doing Really Hard Things, but if you're doing normal software developer stuff and not seeing a productivity advantage, it's a fucking skill issue.

troupo 10mo ago

> a pretty big context window if you are feeding it the right context. Yup. There's some magical "right context" that will fix all the problems. What is that right context? No idea, I guess I need to read a yet-another 20 000-word post describing magical incantations that you should or shouldn't do in the context. The "Opus 4.5 is something else/nex tier/just works" claims in my mind means that I wouldn't need to babysit its every decision, or that it would actually read relevant lines from relevant files etc. Nope. Exact same behaviors as whatever the previous model was. Oh, and that "200k tokens context window"? It's a lie. The quality quickly degrades as soon as Claude reaches somewhere around 50% of the context window. At 80+% it's nearly indistinguishable from a model from two years ago. (BTW, same for Codex/GPT with it's "1 million token window")

CuriouslyC 10mo ago
I realize your experience has been frustrating. I hope you see that every generation of model and harness is converting more hold-outs. We're still a few years from hard diminishing returns assuming capital keeps flowing (and that's without any major new architectures which are likely) so you should be able to see how this is going to play out. It's in your interest to deal with your frustration and figure out how you can leverage the new tools to stay relevant (to the degree that you want to). Regarding the context window, Claude needs thinking turned up for long context accuracy, it's quite forgetful without thinking.
- th0ma5 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - CuriouslyC 10mo ago
    Personally I'm sympathetic to people who don't want to have to use AI, but I dislike it when they attack my use of AI as a skill issue. I'm quite certain the workplace is going to punish people who don't leverage AI though, and I'm trying to be helpful.
    - troupo 10mo ago
      > but I dislike it when they attack my use of AI as a skill issue. No one attacked your use of AI. I explained my own experience with the "Claude Opus 4.5 is next tier". You barged in, ignored anything I said, and attacked my skills. > the workplace is going to punish people who don't leverage AI though, and I'm trying to be helpful. So what exactly is helpful in your comments?
      - CuriouslyC 10mo ago
        The only thing I disagreed with in your post is your objectively incorrect statement regarding Claude's context behavior. Other than that I'm just trying to encourage you to make preparations for something that I don't think you're taking seriously enough yet. No need to get all worked up, it'll only reflect on you.
  - pigeons 10mo ago
    It certainly sounds unkind, if not cultish.
  - mikestorrent 10mo ago
    And, conversely, when we read a comment like yours, it sounds like someone who's afraid of computers, would maybe have decried the bicycle and automobile, and really wishes they could just go live in a cabin in the woods. (And it's fine to do so, just don't mail bombs to us, ok?)
- troupo 10mo ago
  Note how nothing in your comment addresses anything I said. Except the last sentence that basically confirms what I said. This perfectly illustrates the discourse around AI. As for the snide and patronizing "it's in your interest to stay relevant": 1. I use these tools daily. That's why I don't subscribe to willful wide-eyed gullibility. I know exactly what these tools can and cannot do. The vast majority of "AI skeptics" are the same. 2. In a few years when the world is awash in barely working incomprehensible AI slop my skills will be in great demand. Not because I'm an amazing developer (I'm not), but because I have experience separating wheat from the chaff
  - CuriouslyC 10mo ago
    The snide and patronizing is your projection. It kinda makes me sad when the discourse is so poisoned that I can't even encourage someone to protect their own future from something that's obviously coming (technical merits aside, purely based on social dynamics). It seems the subject of AI is emotionally charged for you, so I expect friendly/rational discourse is going to be a challenge. I'd say something nice but since you're primed to see me being patronizing... Fuck you? That what you were expecting?
    - troupo 10mo ago
      > The snide and patronizing is your projection. It's not me who decided to barge in, assume their opponent doesn't use something or doesn't want to use something, and offer unsolicited advice. > It kinda makes me sad when the discourse is so poisoned that I can't even encourage someone to protect their own future from something that's obviously coming See. Again. You're so in love with your "wisdom" that you can't even see what you sound like: snide, patronising, condenscending. And completely missing the whole point of what was written. You are literally the person who poisons the discourse. Me: "here are the issues I still experience with what people claim are 'next tier frontier model'" You: "it's in your interests to figure out how to leverage new tools to stay relevant in the future" Me: ... what the hell are you talking about? I'm using these tools daily. Do you have anything constructive to add to the discourse? > so I expect friendly/rational discourse is going to be a challenge. It's only challenge to you because you keep being in love with your voice and your voice only. Do you have anything to contribute to the actual rational discourse, are you going to attack my character? > 'd say something nice but since you're primed to see me being patronizing... Fuck you? T Ah. The famous friendly/rational discourse of "they attack my use of AI" (no one attacked you), "why don't you invest in learning tools to stay relevant in the future" (I literally use these tools daily, do you have anything useful to say?) and "fuck you" (well, same to you). > That what you were expecting? What I was expecting is responses to what I wrote, not you riding in on a high horse.
theshrike79 10mo ago
It's like working with humans: 1) define problem 2) split problem into small independently verifiable tasks 3) implement tasks one by one, verify with tools With humans 1) is the spec, 2) is the Jira or whatever tasks With an LLM usually 1) is just a markdown file, 2) is a markdown checklist, Github issues (which Claude can use with the `gh` cli) and every loop of 3 gets a fresh context, maybe the spec from step 1 and the relevant task information from 2 I haven't ran into context issues in a LONG time, and if I have it's usually been either intentional (it's a problem where compacting wont' hurt) or an error on my part.
- troupo 10mo ago
  > every loop of 3 gets a fresh context, maybe the spec from step 1 and the relevant task information from 2 > I haven't ran into context issues in a LONG time Because you've become the reverse centaur :) "a person who is serving as a squishy meat appendage for an uncaring machine." [1] You are very aware of the exact issues I'm talking about, and have trained yourself to do all the mechanical dance moves to avoid them. I do the same dances, that's why I'm pointing out that they are still necessary despite the claims of how model X/Y/Z are "next tier". [1] https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-12-05-pop-that-bubble-u-washington-8b6b75abc28e https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-12-05...
  - theshrike79 10mo ago
    Yes and no. I've worked quite a bit with juniors, offshore consultants and just in companies where processes are a bit shit. The exact same method that worked for those happened to also work for LLMs, I didn't have to learn anything new or change much in my workflow. "Fix bug in FoobarComponent" is enough of a bug ticket for the 100x developer in your team with experience with that specific product, but bad for AI, juniors and offshored teams. Thus, giving enough context in each ticket to tell whoever is working on it where to look and a few ideas what might be the root cause and how to fix it is kinda second nature to me. Also my own brain is mostly neurospicy mush, so _I_ need to write the context to the tickets even if I'm the one on it a few weeks from now. Because now-me remembers things, two-weeks-from-now me most likely doesn't.
mikestorrent 10mo ago
> There's some magical "right context" that will fix all the problems. All I can tell you is that in my own lived experience, I've had some fantastic results from AI, and it comes from telling it "look at this thing here, ok, i want you to chain it to that, please consider this factor, don't forget that... blah blah blah" like how I would have spelled things out to a junior developer, and then it really does stand a really solid chance of turning out what I've asked for. It helps a lot that I know what to ask for; there's no replacing that with AI yet. So, your own situation must fall into one of these coarse buckets: - You're doing something way too hard for AI to have a chance at yet, like real science / engineering at the frontier, not just boring software or infra development - Your prompts aren't specific enough, you're not feeding it context, and you're expecting it to one-shot things perfectly instead of having to spend an afternoon prompting and correcting stuff - You're not actually using and getting better at the tools, so you're just shouting criticisms from the sidelines, perhaps as sour grape because you're not allowed by policy / company can't afford to have you get into it. IDK. I hope it's the first one and you're just doing Really Hard Things, but if you're doing normal software developer stuff and not seeing a productivity advantage, it's a fucking skill issue.